He said exactly what he does. He asks that they be placed flat down, so he can see what's on their screen.

My misunderstanding then. I thought that meant screen side down making it useless.

I had the exact same misunderstanding. I run a lot of games online. You kind of have to just give up and trust your players in that format. Makes me much more tolerant when running games in person.

I am tolerant, the other players at the table pulled up the bloke who was referencing the bestiary (he simply wasn't aware he had crossed the line).

I do however, dislike people who don't declare they have read a module or scenario before playing and then try to play sneakily... not cool. But if they are open/honest and play keeping that knowledge in check there isn't an issue.

I like the variety of choices we have available but more importantly I like the banter and play at the table (I play four regular games a month, two of which happen weekly - and I run PFS at a FLGS).

I tried 4th Ed and it wasn't for me (but I gave it a red hot crack) and I will try 5th. Hasbro will be throwing a whole lot of money at our hobby over the next 12 months and I am looking forward to seeing all the new players it brings.

I would like to see some of the older modules chronicles released for PFS for more options and variety in society play (and to use the whole day slot at a store or even two days and get them some repeat business!)

I have used a GM-NPC on occasion; usually to fill a role (or two via mutliclass) for the party which isn't filled by the PC's. The balancing act is to ensure their relevance in the group (and not simply be a doormat) without being heavy handed.

In smaller groups sometimes a GM-NPC is necessary; you'll need a decent back-story, something with real depth (so there character is clearly defined).

Their role should simply be back-up; mechanically I let the players make their rolls; I choose their spell selection (travelling & battle list's). And they have the PC's talk tactics in-game as they get to 'know' each other.

It's never been an issue at my table; the NPC is never there to outshine a PC's and their motivations are always clear (even if they backstory is more of a slow reveal).

Another advantage is; if a PC dies there is an option of the player running the GM-NPC until a new PC character can be introduced into the story without spoiling the flow.

isn't a majority of the people who subscribe to the AP line - the majority just puts up with this because "that's just the way it is".

Please be careful when using the word majority I am a straight, married male of european descent (which means I am blamed for everything wrong in society today).

I don't mind LGBTIQ relationships being represented in Golarion, but then I have never really been concerned where other consenting adults find their happiness, it's never impacted on my own life and I am always surprised how others are happy peer into another couples bedroom and pass judgement.

In-game: I am aware that even such a simple relationship at the table opens people to being more accepting and charitable. However, if this sort of relationship bothers your players then surely nothing is stopping you from tweaking a story to suit your own preference.

...and it was also annoying finding out it was a lifetime boon after allocating them to sessions - had I known earlier (I didn't know my rules guide was beta) - I would have saved my star for special occasions or something more meaningful.

and I had to go back and apologise to some of my local GM's that I was wrong and they were in fact a one-off lifetime benefit.

Really, if you are wanting encourage GM's to run PFS games, a seasonally refreshing benefit isn't too much of issue (it's a sweetener for being a volunteer and running games for other people).
I'd be interested to know if the most vocal complainers on the boards actually had any stars themselves if they were players concerned they were missing out. The language seemed to suggest other people were getting something nice and that's not fair, rather than recognising the perk as being earned through the hard work and dedication of somebody who is helping build the community.

And the reason is, PFS is built around the idea of making a choice, and then living with the consequences of that choice.

We also need to recognise that a build that was legal two days ago, now isn't. (mine, not crane wing - yes the change still twinges..)

It would help if the change [back to Crane Wing] that doesn't penalise the player in question who may have spent money but who has also invested time in the PC. To re-build his character it may cost extra PP and gold depending on a complicated build.

The trick for PFS is retain the flexibility in the rebuild/retraining rules without it being abused. That's kinda tough if we take a sample of comments from the boards. (But we are a diverse bunch that all play for difference reasons and needs). ...and apparently how rebuild rules effected other games.

We need one to illustrate the point, because it certainly does sound miniscule (even though we know under certain circumstances it's not).

Sounding 'minuscule' is your opinion..

People emotionally connect with the PC's they create and it's frustrating when the rules change (now change is inevitable and needed). But people are allowed to be frustrated (then pull themselves back together and then move on). A Chain of feats, can also effect level dips etc...

So one of my PC's was made illegal by a board ruling last week, this meant a race boon I traded and built an entire character concept around was over - and not because it was a combo or optimised. Just a ruling and the Shadow form evolution. Now this annoyed me, I bought the book required for the evolutions, I already had invested the advanced race guide and the advanced players guide. (Now the ruling is cool - I don't have any issues in general, but I do object to now having to pay gold and PP as a result to get back to legal when it was legal up until that ruling (checking FAQ and Additional Resources).

The thing we need to understand is we play in an organised campaign, and the effort it takes to manage such a diverse group of people must be huge. There must be a constant balancing act between various groups and business needs (and I don't have a enough of the picture to make an informed view).

The retraining rules have been great for my older characters who now have access to the newly released content of the last couple of years, the great thing is that whilst the rules of PFS shift slightly ever-so-often they are always moving forward to make a better game and help the community. Just sometimes I get a twinge when it effects me, also because people identify with these characters it matters more to them.

Just imagine for a moment that one of your highest characters had one of it's foundation feats changed - how would you feel?

Considering there are now actual retraining options, I can't see how anyone can complain about not having any way of fixing a feat they now consider dead weight...

I think the point Fin is making is that whilst it's great we now have this option. (The fact it costs PP to change what would have been a legal build to a new legal build). This impacts on builds that rely on feat chains; where the feat taken required other sacrifices earlier in the build. I understand Fin's frustration.

I am currently rebuilding an entire character who is now illegal after a developer post last week. The issue for me; I was careful building two PC's; I checked the FAQ and Additional Resources pages only to find out I missed a ruling that was buried mid-thread from may 2012. It would have been helpful that this ruling was included in the FAQ as I think it's reasonable to be able to find all the rulings in one place (and not just searchable by book, but by the ability, feat or ability ...

I don't think it's a matter of professionalism - Paizo is a great bunch of people making really good products.

Perhaps it's something as a community that we could do better, some in the past have started threads to record these changes

Not really Zalman. The most effective player is going to be the guy who has great moves *and* great stats. Also a truly capable optimized character don't have just one strength. A wizard for example is going to win combat, solve the sphinx's riddle, sneak into the baron's castle and be back on his own plane in time for tea. The Fighter... well he'll get the Dunes of Hal'ker sometime next fortnight.

a common opinion on the boards, people who think they know what wizards are capable of.

If there are any sort of; traps, constructs or anti-magic areas your Wizard won't be heard of again.

Your fighter can pay for faster transport too, or he can cut a wizard in for part of the share of the loot, bring a healer (just in case) and a rogue for those traps... (yay a party!)

An effective player, is someone who can contribute to most encounters and is a good team player.

That some humans are left-handed is an accepted paradigm. It's not abnormal or weird to be left handed. Having a 10% chance to be left handed? Totally feasible. Roll 1d10 - did you get a 1? Congratulations, you're left handed.

Are you born with a tail? No, because the odds are astronomical. Quite literally, a 0.0000000002% chance of it. ....

If we are talking about Real Life... Ok let's not pretend we are in a world where a man can wave his hand and create a ball of fire to throw at his enemies (that's fireball) or a Trade Princess can move in an instant from one side of the world to the other with a phrase (teleport).

We have angels, demons and dragons walking the earth and you are worried because some human whose ancestor was a kobold, might inherit a tail.

Thank you to Stephen Radney-MacFarland for taking the time to respond in the thread and put the issue to rest.

...Logic will eventually have to suffice. If the feat allows you to do something with your tail, and you have no tail, the assumption that it grants you a tail is stretching. At the same time any home GM can easily come in and say that you have a tail, if it fits your character concept and her story.

In summary, when we write the rules, we do intend a level of reason and even common sense. We have to, because instead of making things "air-tight." Personally I believe, and have always believed, that one of the benefits of tabletop RPGs is to allow the mind and the imagination to breathe. Often we don't feel we need to codify such things in rules, because the logic is (we suppose) easily apprehended by the mind and the common sense of it is pleasing to the imagination.

The only difficulty being in organised play is that PFS GM's don't have the luxury of assumption - we work within a rigid ruleset (this isn't a complaint, it's a necessity i.e. Awaken isn't allowed etc...)

Players sit down at a table for a number of reasons; as long as we recognise the gap or 'stretching' in the rules, some players will cling to it until it's removed from PFSOP.

Whenever I read threads like this, all I ask myself is "why can't we all just get along?"

My opinion is that as long as something is PFS legal -- neutral clerics with evil deities, creating undead, paladins -- then it is allowed. There's definitely room for debate and managing of what is PFS legal (hence these forums) but by and large; everything that is PFS legal can all operate in the same world and even, at the same table. It is possible to be a paladin and adventure with an undead-focused caster without smiting his minions every time they hit the board.

Well done and eloquently said..

Too often a vocal minority hijacks an edge-case issue; passions run wild, things are said and before we know it a million voices are left crying in terror...

"Explore, Report, Cooperate" is the motto - and maturity and acceptance is the key.

We all work together for the good of the organisation; just make the effort not to antagonise PC's in the party or the rest of us sitting round the table. It's a social game after all.

.
.people keep on mentioning dead horses please remember, we are bringing new people to the table all the time and they are running into issues we have been discussing for years - so let's give them a break and keep it positive giving them the tools to deal with tools.

I see a fair bit of optimisation (in PFS and home games) - it tends to happen after people have been playing for a while and want to to play a really, good character (and then they go overboard - or it's a more deep-seated need).

Let's not confuse optimisation with being effective in your party role.

The first rule is : Don't be a jerk

Then look at your role in the party; front-line, ranged, sneak, healer etc and aim for fulfilling that role.

Nobody likes the show pony who hogs the spotlight IRL and we like it even less at the table - that's the GM's job to handle party balance and difficulty - this is less an optimisation issue and far more a player/maturity issue.

I think when sitting down to table for the first time it's a good idea to ask (in character or not) peoples expectations in combat and their place in the party - this won't help if you have an uber-build cheesy monkey at the table but it helps. The real danger is some of these builds are so highly optimised that if something surprises them (something they haven't prepared for) the retire from a combat, because their trick doesn't work.

If it's any consolation; the uber builder's usually grow out of it (sometimes after someone has had a quiet word in the ear, but others get simply avoided and learn from self-reflection).

The most important thing at the table is having a character who you comfortable with and contributes to the story/game as a whole. It's all about balance; it takes experience to get the numbers right. So if worried ask for advice and then decide if you want to take it, there are lot's of opinions out there.

There is matriarch of a certain family whose stronghold required the strongest purification by fire - my cleric even salted the earth afterwards - the incident brought us together as a party ... Nick Logue really got us with this one.

By the time we had finished with them a shower was going to be need to wash away just how disturbing the experience was. A definite sense of satisfaction when finally we got through it. (I have yet to read how much was our GM and how much was Nick, but I suspect it's a fair bit of both (having played more of his work).

Those that have played it will know, for the rest...

any Creepy Soulbound Doll....

Oh... The Cult in Cult of the Ebon Destroyers... take your pick there... there are any number of bad guy's that will make an impression.

Thanks Bobson - you can do anything as a houserule... that's a given - most of us have been doing this for a while, some of us for decades.

The point of my question and the original FAQ - back in the original thread, before it was moved to Homebrew - was in fact to try and get the feat updated/considered for a review.

A lot of publications (i.e. dictionaries, laws and statutes) get reviewed from time to keep them relevant. My point was that the Natural Spell feat can only be taken by one class, one with Wild Shape (Su): and as now we have new races that have Change Shape (Su): I am asking if now is time for that review.

Now, I am not saying I have examined all the impacts across the ruleset - the dev's will be able to see the bigger picture, they are the experts. But I noticed to the issue and am highlighting for them. If Natural Spell then gets flagged in the next review meeting that's fine but they may not have been aware of the issue until I raised it.

What I would like from people is any helpful comments or suggestions that the dev team can use in their internal discussions. So what are the balance issues? How much of a impact will this change have on the game?

Without being at the table it's hard for me to offer anything but very general advice. (No offence intended, I can hear your frustration but you will be biased by what's happened).

Firstly, it sounds like you could all benefit from playing at other PFS tables (I wouldn't put up with that sort of behaviour at the table without saying something at the time).

You won't get 2 PP at every sitting; sometimes it's just the one or none. It happens.

I'd go back and ask for the Chronicle and add the names of the PC's your own PC just travelled with. It becomes part of your characters story, and down the track you will have the option of reminding them of your previous experience together (in character, keep it light, nothing negative).

If you want to just hit stuff, then hit stuff and be a Front-liner (Paladin, Fighter etc..).

If you are a Cleric then people will expect healing (and you should be able to deliver) no excuses.

If your fighter is calling for 'medic' after every hit then he/she needs to be fighting smarter (suggest the: Fight Defensively action - I even give them a buff card at some tables).

The cleric's job is to keep everyone in the fight - there is nothing more annoying than being the one bleeding out whilst the combat rages around you, because your Cleric/Healer is going-for-gold-and-glory. (it's happened, I am old school and when someone goes down, one of the group should try an stabilise the downed PC if able).

Everyone expects a rogue to be able to find traps, a wizard to cast spells, and a cleric to heal.

Anyone can heal out of combat.. it's the in-combat healing where the Cleric shines.

and another vote for Stronghold Builders Guide with a tie-in to the kingmaker mechanics perhaps?

and I would love to see some PDF only books (to keep the cost down) for summoned creatures - yes I can make them myself. But wouldn't it be lovely to have a PDF of summoned monsters and a second for Summon natures ally?

On level-up, take the spell "blood transcription."
Start asking non-chalantly if there are any bottles around when you wander into houses or marketplaces. Collect these bottles.
Take ranks in heal if you think you'll need it, but next time you kill a spellcaster, drain his blood into a bottle, cast "Blood Transcription," and pick a spell from his spells known and write it down! Boom! You've just learned grease!

.....

The real solution is, as everyone else said, talk with your DM. If that doesn't work, and you're not having fun, then you would probably better enjoy playing a video game or reading a book.

That is twistedly awesome....(and it's from Ultimate Magic too - so allowable by my GM, I have just the character who would take this - my GM is going to go spare)

The point is moot in any event, as it is still a move action. The only penalty for pulling a weapon out of a backpack is that it is treated as drawing out an item, which means it is STILL a move action, but a move action that provokes (as it is a bit more distracting).

The penalty is whatever the the GM agrees, it was his call and entirely reasonable. You should have sent him an email about it to him afterwards nothing was going to be gained vehemently doing anything.

Go an spend the money on; an Adventurers Sash, a Versatile Vest or a Handy Haversack. Problem solved and your character looks a little more fashionable (no-one looks good in a bulging back pack, it's so first level).